Re: [PATCH v4 02/11] mfd: Add support for Kontron sl28cpld management controller

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Mon, 08 Jun 2020, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> +Cc: some Intel people WRT our internal discussion about similar
> problem and solutions.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:30 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 06 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > Am 2020-06-06 13:46, schrieb Mark Brown:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 10:07:36PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > > > Am 2020-06-05 12:50, schrieb Mark Brown:
> 
> ...
> 
> > Right.  I'm suggesting a means to extrapolate complex shared and
> > sometimes intertwined batches of register sets to be consumed by
> > multiple (sub-)devices spanning different subsystems.
> >
> > Actually scrap that.  The most common case I see is a single Regmap
> > covering all child-devices.
> 
> Yes, because often we need a synchronization across the entire address
> space of the (parent) device in question.

Exactly.

Because of the reasons in the paragraph above:

 "complex shared and sometimes intertwined batches of register sets to
  be consumed by multiple (sub-)devices spanning different subsystems"

> >  It would be great if there was a way in
> > which we could make an assumption that the entire register address
> > space for a 'tagged' (MFD) device is to be shared (via Regmap) between
> > each of the devices described by its child-nodes.  Probably by picking
> > up on the 'simple-mfd' compatible string in the first instance.
> >
> > Rob, is the above something you would contemplate?
> >
> > Michael, do your register addresses overlap i.e. are they intermingled
> > with one another?  Do multiple child devices need access to the same
> > registers i.e. are they shared?
> >
> > > > > But, there is more in my driver:
> > > > >  (1) there is a version check
> >
> > If we can rid the Regmap dependency, then creating an entire driver to
> > conduct a version check is unjustifiable.  This could become an inline
> > function which is called by each of the sub-devices instead, for
> > example.
> >
> > > > >  (2) there is another function for which there is no suitable linux
> > > > >      subsystem I'm aware of and thus which I'd like to us sysfs
> > > > >      attributes for: This controller supports 16 non-volatile
> > > > >      configuration bits. (this is still TBD)
> >
> > There is a place for everything in Linux.
> >
> > What do these bits configure?
> >
> > > > TBH I'd also say that the enumeration of the subdevices for this
> > > > device should be in the device rather than the DT, they don't
> > > > seem to be things that exist outside of this one device.
> > >
> > > We're going circles here, formerly they were enumerated in the MFD.
> > > Yes, they are devices which aren't likely be used outside a
> > > "sl28cpld", but there might there might be other versions of the
> > > sl28cpld with other components on different base addresses. I
> > > don't care if they are enumerated in DT or MFD, actually, I'd
> > > prefer the latter. _But_ I would like to have the device tree
> > > properties for its subdevices, e.g. the ones for the watchdog or
> > > whatever components there might be in the future.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > MFD core can
> > > match a device tree node today; but only one per unique compatible
> > > string. So what should I use to differentiate the different
> > > subdevices?
> >
> > Right.  I have been aware of this issue.  The only suitable solution
> > to this would be to match on 'reg'.
> >
> > FYI: I plan to fix this.
> >
> > If your register map needs to change, then I suggest that this is
> > either a new device or at least a different version of the device and
> > would also have to be represented as different (sub-)mfd_cell.
> >
> > > Rob suggested the internal offset, which I did here.
> >
> > FWIW, I don't like this idea.  DTs should not have to be modified
> > (either in the first instance or subsequently) or specifically
> > designed to patch inadequacies in any given OS.
> >
> > > But then, there is less use in duplicating the offsets in the MFD
> > > just to have the MFD enumerate the subdevices and then match
> > > the device tree nodes against it. I can just use
> > > of_platform_populate() to enumerate the children and I won't
> > > have to duplicate the base addresses.
> >
> > Which is fine.  However this causes a different issue for you.  By
> > stripping out the MFD code you render the MFD portion seemingly
> > superfluous.  Another issue driver authors commonly contend with.
> 

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog